IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

13^TH NOVEMBER 2025                                         SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/363/2023

BETWEEN

OWOICHO JOHN PAUL ……………………………………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED ……………………………………. DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION:

U.J. OKWORI ESQ with O.C.ADAMA ESQ for CLAIMANT

BIMBO ATILOLA FOR DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

1. This suit was commenced on 12th December 2023 by way of a General Form of Complaint wherein the Claimant is seeking the following:

1. A declaration that the Claimant's summary dismissal from the employment of the Defendant was wrongful for being in violation of Sanction Grid No.14 of Appendix 1 of the Defendant's Employee Handbook.

2. A declaration that the total sum of One Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) being amount of unauthorised debit to USD Account No. 2035907381 belonging to the Claimant before his suspension and summary dismissal is unlawful and oppressive.

3. A Declaration that the Claimant cannot be held liable for errors resulting from the defective currency verifier machine provided by the Defendant for use at Abaji Branch of the Defendant.

4. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to withdraw the letter of Summary Dismissal dated August 7, 2023 and replace same with a Letter of Termination.

5. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to unfreeze the Claimant's accounts: (1) Account No. 2026429140 (2) Account No. 2021119008 (3) Account No 3052710242 (4) Account No. 3081347811 (5) USD Account No. 2035907381. The Claimant’s Children Accounts which are (1) Owoicho Bishop Ekondu 3121132443, (2) Owoicho Karen Atuma 3121131305 which are all domiciled with the Defendant.

6. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to reverse forthwith the sum of $1,500.00 (One Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars) being the unauthorized debit unilaterally made on the Claimant's USD Account No. 2035907381 with the Defendant.

7. An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N5,203,006.45 (Five Million, Two Hundred and Three Thousand, Six Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being the Claimant's earned allowances while in the employment of the Defendant.

8. An Order of this honourable Court awarding as general damages or compensation in the sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant for wrongful dismissal causing the Claimant trauma, pains and other unnecessary hardship.

9. The payment of the sum of N5, 000,000 (Five Million Naira Only) as cost of action.

10. A post-judgment interest rate of 10% per annum from the date of this judgment up until the date the judgment sum is liquidated.

CLAIMANT’S CASE

2. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant in September 2014 and rose to the rank of assistant banking officer. He was involved in foreign currency transactions at the Abaji branch of the Defendant.  In June 2022, a colleague introduced a customer, Abdulwahab Onimisi Kabir, who brought $1,000 for exchange. The Claimant assisted, following standard procedures, and the currency was confirmed genuine using the bank's verifier machine. Subsequent transactions totalling $35,000 USD (Thirty Five Thousand USD) were also processed. The bank later discovered that $37,600 (Thirty-Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars) evacuated from the Abaji branch were counterfeit. The Claimant was queried, suspended, and later summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct.

3. The Claimant’s grievances are that his employment was wrongfully dismissed, the sum of $1,500 (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) was debited without authorization from his account by the Defendant, unfair treatment as others involved were reinstated, withheld allowances in the sum of N5, 203,006.45 (Five Million, Two Hundred And Three Thousand, Six Naira and Forty-Five Kobo), trauma, pains, and hardship due to wrongful dismissal.

4. It is also the case of Claimant that his dismissal was premature, as investigations were ongoing, and that he was singled out unfairly. Hence, this suit.

 

 

DEFENCE

5. In response to this suit, the Defendant filed a defence on 25^th April 2024 where it denied the Claimant's allegations of wrongful dismissal, unauthorized debit, and other claims. The Defendant (a commercial bank) asserts that the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct, specifically engaging in unethical forex trading for profit while employed by the bank. It was admitted that the Claimant was employed as an Assistant Banking Officer at the Abaji Branch, where he was involved in foreign currency transactions. - The bank discovered that the Claimant had engaged in unethical forex trading with Bureau De Change agents and POS operators, using his personal bank account and other accounts. The Claimant's actions were deemed a conflict of interest and a breach of the bank's Professional Code of Ethics and Business Conduct. Consequently, the bank followed due process in investigating the Claimant's misconduct and dismissing him from service.

6.. It admitted that the Claimant's account was debited with $1,500 USD (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars), which the Claimant claimed he had recovered from his personal efforts and deposited into his account and that the Claimant filled a currency withdrawal form for cash withdrawal of the said sum.

7. The Defendant claims it paid to the Claimant his basic salary and allowances while on suspension. Also that the Claimant had taken loans from the bank, which were not fully liquidated at the time of his dismissal and that the Defendant had paid some allowances to the Claimant in advance, hence upon his dismissal, deductions were debited against his account on prorated basis.

8. The bank denies freezing the Claimant's accounts or those of his children. It further asserted that the Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in accordance with extant terms of employment and therefore not entitled to terminal benefit. It therefore urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant's suit with costs, asserting that it is frivolous and baseless.

REPLY

9. On 12th December 2024, the Claimant filed a reply in reaction to the Defendant’s defence denying any involvement in unethical forex trading for personal gain or partnership with Mr. Kabiru and Mr. Babawale. The Claimant states that dealings with Mr. Kabiru and Mr. Babawale were purely official, and Mr. Kabiru is an agent of the Defendant. The Claimant asserts that he did not engage in any transaction or deal for personal gain or conflict of interest during his employment and explains that the forex transaction on June 9, 2022, was done following regular procedures, involving multiple staff members and using the Defendant's detection machine.

10. The Claimant also claims that he did not earn any commission from the transaction and that any gifts received were disclosed to the head branch service. Also that the transactions were approved by his superiors, including Mr. Jerome O. Michael and Mr. Umar Faruq.

11. It is the case of the Claimant that he was not given fair hearing on the allegations and was not informed of the specific charges against him. That query was about counterfeit notes and not conflict of interest or unethical trading. Thus, the Claimant maintains that he is entitled to the reliefs stated in his Statement of Facts, despite receiving half of his basic salary during suspension.

COMMENCEMENT OF HEARING

12. Trial in this suit commenced on 5th February 2025 where the Claimant testified as CW1 and adopted witness statement on oath filed 12th December 2023 and 12th December 2024 respectively. He also tendered 16 (sixteen) documents which were admitted and marked as exhibits C1 – C16

13. Under cross-examination, the Claimant testified that no money was given to him by Bureau de change and that agent of Defendant gave him gift for connecting him with a bureau de change (BDC) agent to assist him with exchange; which was declared to Defendant’s branch head in compliance with policy. That he received money from the BDC into his personal account and transferred same to people on behalf of BDC. That he had no personal interest in depositing of fake $35,000 and he proved this by opting to give up the gift he had earlier received.

14. On 6th February 2025, the Claimant called a subpoenaed witness; one Jerome Olorunsaiye Michael to provide CCTV footage of 10th June 2025 and attendance register. The subpoenaed witness alleged that the footage had been damaged during an armed robbery attack and proceeded to tender the attendance list which was admitted and marked as exhibit C17. Claimant closed case on same date.

15. The Defendant on its part opened case on 6th February 2025 and substituted his witness one Mr Moses Okworie with Alonge Adedeji who deposed to witness statement on oath filed 3rd February 2025 and through whom 16 (sixteen) documents were tendered, admitted and marked as exhibits D1 – D16.

16. Under cross-examination, DW1 testified that he works in the human capital and management department of the Defendant and that the Defendant’s handbook was reviewed as at November 2019 and that his department performed its duty by issuing the handbook to the employees electronically.

17. Dw1 stated that the Claimant’s role in the Defendant does not include confirmation of foreign currency and payment into account. However, Claimant’s scope of duty extends to verifying authenticity of foreign currency. That Claimant was head of the team responsible for confirming authenticity of foreign currency and Claimant reported to the head of financial transactions.

18. Dw1 stated that the money received by the Claimant was for foreign currency sold and transfers made from account, leaving balance as commission.

19. The Defendant also subpoenaed 2 (two) witnesses; Barbara Ukanwa Relationship Manager Zenith Bank of Nigeria) as DW2 and Faniyi Emmanuel Adekunle (Business Development Manager First Bank of Nigeria) as DW3.

20. The DW2 tendered 2(two) documents which were admitted and marked as exhibits D17-D18, while DW3 also tendered 2 (two) documents which were admitted and marked as exhibits D19-D20.

21. The Defendant closed its case on 27^th March 2025 and matter was adjourned for adoption of final written addresses. Accordingly, the Defendant filed its final written address on 9th May 2025. In reaction, the Claimant filed his final written address on 2^nd July 2025 and a reply on points of law was filed by the Defendant on 22^nd September 2025. On 25^th September 2025, Counsel representing both sides adopted their final written addresses and Court adjourned for judgment.

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION

22. Learned Counsel to the Defendant formulated 4 (four) issues for determination which are itemised below:

1. Whether the Claimant's case is supported with any valid evidence whatsoever having admitted that he signed the witness statement in his own house.

2. Whether the Claimant was validly dismissed for gross misconduct relating to conflict of interest.

3. Whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing on issues relating to conflict of interest (unethical trading in forex for gains).

 4. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case.

 

 

ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1

Whether the Claimant's case is supported with any valid evidence whatsoever having admitted that he signed the witness statement in his own house.

23. The Defendant's argument hinges on whether the Claimant's witness statements on oath are competent, given that they were signed at the Claimant's house rather than in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths or authorized person. The Defendant contends that the witness statements are incompetent and liable to be expunged because they were not signed before a Commissioner for Oaths. This is based on the Evidence Act and Oaths Law, which require depositions to be made on oath before an authorized person. Counsel cited BUBA & ANOR v. MAHMUD & ANOR (2020) LPELR-51404 (CA), ASHIRU V. INEC (2020) 16 NWLR (PT. 1751) (P.441, PARAS B-G

ISSUE 2

Whether the Claimant was validly dismissed for gross misconduct relating to conflict of interest

24. Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Claimant's actions involved engaging in unethical forex trading for profit with Bureau de Change agents and POS operators, using his official salary bank account. He received gratifications, which he termed "appreciation gifts," but didn't disclose these transactions to the designated officers. That the Defendant's Employee Handbook and Professional Code of Ethics and Business Conduct explicitly prohibit conflict of interest, gratification, and receiving gifts.

25. Counsel submitted that there are documentary evidence, including bank statements which supports the Defendant's claims of the Claimant's misconduct. Given these points, it was argued that the Claimant's actions constitute gross misconduct, justifying summary dismissal according to the Defendant's policies.

ISSUE 3

Whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing on issues relating to conflict of interest (unethical trading in forex for gains).

26. The Defendant argues that the Claimant was afforded fair hearing before being dismissed for gross misconduct. That the Claimant was issued a query, which he responded to, and was subsequently invited to appear before a Disciplinary Committee where he was asked questions relating to the allegations of conflict of interest and unethical forex trading. The Committee's report summarizes the Claimant's defence, including his admission of depositing $35,000 USD (Thirty Five Thousand Dollars) to various accounts and receiving naira equivalents. Thus, the Claimant was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide explanations for his actions.

27. That the Claimant was asked specific questions about his involvement in forex transactions, and he provided answer and the Disciplinary Committee found the Claimant's defence untenable and established a case of gross misconduct against him. Hence, the Claimant was afforded fair hearing.

ISSUE 4

Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this case.

28. The Defendant argues that the Claimant has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to the reliefs sought as the burden of proof lies on he who asserts. Counsel cited NDUUL V. WAYO & ORS (2018) 7 SC (PT 111) 164 @ 212, Section 131(2) of the Evidence Act 2011. In a nutshell, the Defendant argued that:

i.                    That the Claimant's summary dismissal was valid due to gross misconduct.

ii.                  The Claimant admitted to recovering $1,500, which was debited from his account.

iii.                The Claimant failed to prove that the currency verifier machines were defective.

iv.                The Claimant's accounts were not frozen.

v.                  The Claimant was paid his basic salary and allowances during suspension.

vi.                The Claimant is not entitled to earned allowances or general damages.

vii.             The Claimant's indebtedness to the Defendant was deducted from his terminal benefits.

On the whole, learned Counsel to the Defendant urged Court to dismiss this suit.

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION

The learned Counsel representing the Claimant raised 2 (two) issues for determination to wit:

i.                    Whether or not, considering the body of evidence before the Court, the action of the Claimant amounted to conflict of interest and dishonesty warranting his summary dismissal from the Defendant's employment for gross misconduct?

ii.                  Whether or not, from the evidence before the Court, the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him the reliefs sought before the Honourable Court?

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Issue 1

Whether or not, considering the body of evidence before the Court, the action of the Claimant amounted to conflict of interest and dishonesty warranting his summary dismissal from the Defendant's employment for gross misconduct?

29. The Claimant's Counsel argues that the Claimant's actions did not amount to conflict of interest and dishonesty warranting summary dismissal. Citing the case of U.B.N. PLC V. SOARE (2012) 11 NWLR P. 550 (CA), Claimant’s Counsel submitted that gross misconduct refers to conduct that undermines the confidence between an employee and employer and that the contract of employment is the primary document to determine misconduct. He referred to U.B.A. PLC v. ORANUBA (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1390) P. 1 (CA),

30. The Claimant's Counsel argued that there is no evidence linking the Claimant to the allegation of gross misconduct, conflict of interest or dishonesty. That the Claimant merely assisted known agents of the Defendant with their transactions, which could be seen as enhancing customer-banker relationships. The Claimant admitted accepting gifts, but also declared them to his unit head, which is in line with the Defendant's Gift Policy (Exhibit D2). Learned Counsel submitted that the Report of the Disciplinary Committee, is incomplete and should be discountenanced. Counsel cited the case of MOHAMMED HAMZA V. DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS & 2 ORS Suit No. NICN/ABJ/28/2020, where the Court held that an incomplete document cannot be relied upon. He argued that the Claimant's actions did not amount to conflict of interest and dishonesty warranting summary dismissal.

Issue 2

Whether or not, from the evidence before the Court, the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him the reliefs sought before the Honourable Court?

31. The Claimant's Counsel argued that the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought before the Honourable Court. That the Defendant unlawfully debited the Claimant's Dollar Account No. 2035907381 in the sum of $1,500.00 without authorization. According to Claimant’s Counsel, the Claimant filled a teller/voucher for personal withdrawal, but the Defendant picked it from the Claimant's drawer and debited the account without generating and attaching the Claimant's BVN, which is alien to banking procedure and policy.

32. Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that the Defendant's claim that the Claimant facilitated bringing fake dollars into the Defendant's vault is flawed as the Defendant failed to provide evidence to demonstrate the alleged fake dollar notes the Claimant helped bring into the system and that the Defendant's memo directing the discontinued use of the former currency verifier machine suggests that the Defendant realized the problem and took steps to forestall further occurrence.

33. To the Claimant’s Counsel, the evidence tendered by the Claimant; Exhibits C1 to C16, and the testimony contained in his adopted Witness Statement on Oath, supports the Claimant's case and the Defendant's failure to establish conflict of interest and the lack of fair hearing renders the dismissal of Claimant’s employment unlawful. He also contended that the Defendant froze the Claimant's accounts without a Court order, which is unlawful. Counsel cited G.T.B. PLC V. ADEDAMOLA (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1664) 30 CA

REPLY ON POINT OF LAW

34. Responding to the Claimant’s final written address, the Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to provide documentary evidence of declaring gifts as required by the Defendant's policies, thus, the Claimant's oral claim of declaration is insufficient. He cited AGBOOLA v. UBA PLC & ORS (2011) LPELR-9353(SC)) [2.1].

35. In addition, Exhibit D20 (disciplinary matter investigation report) was validly admitted and contains relevant information regarding the disciplinary committee proceedings. The Claimant did not contradict or cross-examine the DW1 on Exhibit D20.

36. Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Claimant was afforded fair hearing as the Defendant followed the rules of natural justice and the disciplinary committee proceedings complied with the Defendant's Employee Handbook (Exhibit D2) and placed reliance on W. A.E.C. V. MBAMALU (1992) 3 NWLR (PT. 230) 481

37. Regarding unauthorized withdrawal, Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Claimant admitted filling and signing a currency withdrawal form for the withdrawal of $1,500 USD (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) from his account and that it amounts to admission. He cited SEMBCORP ENGINEERING PTE LTD v. IPCO (WA) HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62984(SC)

38. With regard to the allegation that the Defendant freezes Claimant’s account and those belonging to his children, Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to provide proof of the freezing of his accounts, and that he who asserts must prove. He cited PHILLIPS V. EBA ODAN COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD (2012) LPELR-9718(SC).

39. In conclusion, the Defendant submitted that the Claimant has not established facts nor led credible evidence to secure a favourable judgment. The Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the Claimant's suit with substantial costs, arguing that it lacks merit.

DECISION

40. The gamut of the Claimant’s case is that his employment with the Defendant was wrongfully summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct related to a counterfeit currency transaction. He claims the dismissal was wrongful, citing that he was acting in the course of his duty, the currency was verified using the Defendant’s verifying machine, others involved in the transaction were not dismissed and that the bank’s disciplinary process was flawed.

41. In summary, the Claimant is seeking conversion of his summary dismissal to termination, reversal of unauthorized account debits. Payment of withheld allowances and damages for wrongful dismissal.

42. The Defendant on its part asserted that it dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct, including unethical forex trading and dishonesty, after discovering, he deposited fake currency amounting to $35,000 (Thirty Five Thousand Dollars) into his account and transferred same to suspected accomplices. It was asserted that the disciplinary procedure that led to Claimant’s dismissal was in accordance with terms outlined in the condition of service/handbook.

43. Accordingly, I have carefully considered the processes filed in this suit, together with the oral and documentary evidence filed for and against and also the final written submissions of learned Counsel to respective parties and have distilled a sole issue for the just determination of this suit to wit:

“Whether the Claimant has proven his case to be entitled to his claims”

I shall be addressing the above distilled issues on the following legs:

i.                    Whether the Claimant was afforded fair hearing

ii.                  Whether the Defendant complied with the disciplinary procedure stipulated in its employee’s handbook

iii.               Whether the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully summarily dismissed

These issues shall be addressed simultaneously.

44. But before I determine the merit of this case, I shall be addressing the validity of the Claimant’s witness statement on oath as the Defendant has challenged same on the ground that the Claimant under cross examination testified to the effect that he signed his witness statement on oath in his house. The Defendant has placed reliance on the Oaths Act to the effect that the law only permits that such a process be signed before a commissioner for oath or an authorised officer. This submission by the learned Counsel to the Defendant is absolutely correct. However, I must refer the Defendant’s Counsel to the case of OBANIGBA V. ABIBU (2021) 3 NWLR (PT. 1762) 84 where it was held that:

“… the witness statement on oath upon adoption becomes evidence in chief of the witness. If there is any objection or concern with the witness statement such objection should be raised at the time the witness seeks to adopt it. Once it is adopted without objection, it is no longer open to a party to challenge the competence of the witness statement which has translated to the witness’s evidence in chief… what is more is that the implication of adopting an irregular witness statement on oath is that such adoption makes the deposition admissible.”

See also ADEJUGBE V. ADULOJU (2022) 3 NWLR (PT 1816) 131 @ 158-159, PARAS B-B, 168, PARAS E-G.

45. From the foregoing, a party is expected to object to a witness statement on oath before it is adopted. Given that the Defendant failed to challenge the Claimant’s witness statement on oath before adoption, it has become too late to challenge same as the once irregular or defective witness statement on oath has now become admissible as evidence. It is on this ground that the submission of the learned Counsel to the Defendant challenging the competence and validity of the Claimant’s witness statement on oath is hereby discountenanced. I so hold.

46. Addressing the substantive matter, it is settled that in an action for wrongful termination/dismissal of employment, the onus is on the Claimant to prove the terms of the agreement that was allegedly breached. See AMODU v. AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR (PT. 150) 356 (P44. PARA H, OLANLEGE V. AFRO CONT. (NIG) LTD (1996) 7 NWLR (PT. 458) 29.This onus is only discharged by the Claimant placing before the Court the terms and conditions of the employment and proving the manner in which the employer breached these terms and conditions. See NITEL V. AKWA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT. 964) 391

47. Accordingly, the Claimant tendered the employee’s handbook of the Defendant (exhibit C4). I observed that the Defendant in paragraph 8 (i-ii) of the statement of defence stated that its employee’s handbook was amended in 2019 and came into force in 2019. Thus, I have compared the employee’s handbook tendered by the Claimant (exhibit C4 and that tendered by the Defendant (exhibit D2) and find them to be same particularly regarding the provisions applied in determination of this suit.

48. Having carefully considered the employee’s handbook (exhibit C4) I have gathered that when an employee as in this case commits an act of misconduct, he/she shall be issued a query to make representation explaining the circumstances regarding his or her conduct within a specified timeframe, depending on the gravity of the offence, further investigations may be carried out after the reply to the query and the alleged offender may be invited to make representation in his defence before a disciplinary committee.

49. In this instant case, the Claimant was issued a query letter dated 13^th July 2022 (exhibit C16) which he responded to on same date as evidenced in (exhibit C16). Unsatisfied with the Claimant’s response, the Defendant proceeded to place the Claimant on suspension vide letter dated 14^th July 2022 (exhibit C16). I find this to be in compliance with the employee’s handbook (exhibit C4).

50. With regard to fair hearing, it is trite that the principle of fair hearing particularly in employment matters connotes that the employee is given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him/her and given the opportunity to face his accusers. See SKYE BANK V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1 @ P. 36. In this instance, the Claimant was afforded the opportunity to make representations in his defence. I therefore find that he was afforded fair hearing. I have observed that the Claimant as can be seen in paragraph 10 of reply to statement of defence, states that although he was queried for counterfeit notes, he was not queried for conflict of interest and/or trading in forex and that these offences were never raised even before the disciplinary committee proceedings. Consequently, recourse shall be made to the query letter and relevant excerpts shall be reproduced below:

“Dear John Paul,

It has been reported that you Owoicho John Paul (SN027120) paid into account (2034556919 Thomas Babawale) on various dates listed below the total sum of $35,000.00 (Thirty Five Thousand Dollars)

It was confirmed that the account holder in turn credited you John Paul account 3081347811 in naira for the value of the various dollars,

10-06-2022 = $1000

14-06-2022 = $3000

16-06-2022= $3000

20-06-2022= $3000

27-06-2022= $10000

01-07-2022=$4000

04-07-2022=$1000

06-07-2022 = $10000

TOTAL = $35000

Please explain in seriatim

1.           Please explain the source of the counterfeit notes,

2.               Why did you bring counterfeit/fake dollars into First bank system?

3.               Why did you make USD cash deposits into a third-party account thereby flouting the bank's policy?

4.               Please explain your interest in the forex transaction that made you serve as a conduit pipe for exchange of foreign currency to naira.

5.               As the team Lead Financial transactions, you had access to the fake currency detection machine, which is available in Abaji branch, why did you not use this machine to check the currency notes before depositing same,

6.               What recovery efforts are you making towards recovering the value of the fake dollars deposited by you to regularize the bank's position.

7.               State the date you joined first bank, the branches you have worked in, the departments you have worked in with dates.

Respond immediately and note to provide any other information that might aid investigation. Regards”

51. From the foregoing, I am without any iota of doubt convinced that the scope of the Claimant’s query bordered around deposition of counterfeit notes, unethical trading in forex and conflict of interest. Thus, Claimant’s assertion that he was not queried for trading in forex or conflict of interest is untenable. I so hold.

52. I can see that the Claimant has also challenged his dismissal on the ground that he was still being investigated by the police and economic and financial crimes commission when he was disciplined by the Defendant and consequently dismissed. To the Claimant, this is in contravention of sanction 14 of the employee’s handbook. I have therefore carefully considered said provision and find that the Claimant’s reliance on this provision is flawed as the said provision only applies to matters before a competent Court of jurisdiction which requires that where there is suspected involvement in criminal offence the sanction would be suspension pending the outcome of the case in Court. Hence, it is evident that sanction 14 of employee’s handbook applies to only matters between the individual and the state i.e. matter before the Court. It is thus, my finding that this provision cannot be construed to imply that the Defendant must wait for outcome of investigation of appropriate authorities before it can carry out its own investigations or take disciplinary steps against the Claimant. It is on this ground that I find the Claimant’s averment in this regard untenable and therefore discountenanced. I so hold.

53. The question now is whether the Defendant established the offence of depositing of counterfeit dollar currency, conflict of interest and unethical trading in forex to have warranted the summary dismissal of the Claimant. It is the evidence of the Claimant that when foreign currency is brought to the bank, the currency is made to pass through a system of verification to confirm its authenticity before receiving it. In Paragraph 14 of statement of facts, the Claimant asserted that the sum of $1000(One Thousand Dollars) brought by Abdulwahab Onimisi Kabiru was confirmed by the head of financial transactions and foreign currency cashier and other sum brought by the same agent passed through the same process of verification. The Claimant in further proof of this claim subpoenaed the Defendant to provide CCTV video footage of these transactions. The Defendant on its part claimed that it lost this record due to an armed robbery attack at its Abaji branch. At this juncture, I am minded to state that this is a criminal offence for which the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and where there is a cast of doubt, the Court is required to decide in favour of the offender (Claimant herein). See Section 135 Evidence Act 2011, MOHAMMED V.A.G. FED (2021) 3 NWLR (PT. 1764) 397, ABUBAKAR V. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (PT. 1737) 37 @ P. 151 PARAS A-B, 166, PARAS G-H.

54. More so, it is on record that after discovering the fake currency, the Defendant issued an internal memo (exhibit C6) on 19th July 2022 which shall be reproduced below for the sake of comprehension:

“Subject: REVIEW OF FCY CASH PROCESSING IN BRANCHES

Dear Colleagues,

Trust this mail meets you well.

In a bid to manage risks associated with the processing of FCY notes in the branches, the bank had following enhanced features; previously deployed GFS 220F Currency Verifier Machine to our branch locations. The machine has the

?      Detection of fake notes

?      Capturing of banknote Serial numbers

?      Records date and time of collection

?      Generate a receipt showing serial number of notes collected, analysis of denomination and total sum

Please be informed that effective immediately, branches are to be guided by the following;

?      Stop the use of any other FCY currency verifier machine different from the GFS 220F Currency

Verifier Machine.

?      Branches who do not have this brand of machine are to politely refer customers requesting for

FCY transactions to the nearest branch in the attached list of locations (where these machines have been deployed to).

?      The GFS 220F Currency Verifier Machine are to be used for processing all cash withdrawals/deposits, while the print out(receipt) showing the serial number of the processed bank notes are to be attached to the deposit slip/withdrawal instruction/cheque for future reference.

Kindly note that this takes immediate effect and it applies to both FCY deposit and withdrawal. Thank you.”

55. This foregoing excerpt simply denotes that the Defendant was no longer confident of the integrity of verification tests by the machines previously owned by it. Would it then be farfetched that even the bank seems to believe that its existing machines may not be capable of giving adequate verification tests of authenticity of currencies, hence the need to halt its usage and advocate for usage of the GFS 220F Currency Verifier Machine?

56. Furthermore, in the disciplinary committee’s report (exhibit D20) I have gathered that although the Abaji branch of the Defendant where the Claimant served was in possession of the GFS 220F Currency Verifier Machine, it was the old machine that was in use during the period of the queried transactions of the Claimant. Therefore, these events have casted a doubt in the mind of the Court as to the culpability of the Claimant for depositing fake currency. It is therefore my finding that the Defendant has failed to establish a case of wilful deposition of fake dollar currency. I so hold.

57. With regard to the allegation of conflict of interest, generally, conflict of interest refers to a situation where a person is in a position to derive personal benefits from action or decisions made in their official capacity, the handbook defines conflict of interest as “Conflict of interest refers to situations in which personal, occupational or financial considerations may affect, or appear to affect, employees' objectivity, Judgment or ability to act in the best interests of the Bank. It includes any transaction or activity engaged in by an employee of the Bank, whether directly or indirectly that can or has the likelihood to obstruct or negatively affect the interest and image of the Defendant. Conflict of interest may result in financial gain to the employee or avoidance of financial loss by the employee at the expense of the Bank's interest, resources or time.

58. The handbook further gave examples of conflict of interest to include acceptance of gifts or entertainment from individuals or organizations who do business with the Defendant in order to influence the performance of one's job or may influence behaviour in a way that conflicts with the interests of the Bank. This description is further reflected in paragraph 2.1 of the code of ethics of the Defendant (exhibit D3).

59. As can be deduced from paragraph 7 of the witness statement on oath of the Defendant the particulars of conflict of interest are that the Claimant deposited a total of $35000 USD (Thirty-Five Thousand) fake dollar notes into the Bank's system and received financial benefits contrary to terms stipulated in the Defendant’s employee’s handbook. In the earlier part of this judgment, I held that the Defendant failed to establish that the Claimant wilfully introduced fake dollar currency to its system thereby causing it financial loss. However, the summary dismissal is hinged on gross misconduct which from the totality of evidence before me borders not only on wilful deposition of fake currency, but also conflict of interest and acceptance of gift.

Article 4.4 of the handbook provides thus:

“4.4 Gift Policy
The Bank has two polices in place that guide the treatment of gifts and hospitality given/ received to/ from third parties. They are
a. Policy on the Giving of Gifts and Hospitality to third parties; and
b. Policy on the Receiving of Gifts and Hospitality from third parties
Generally, it is expected that:
1. All gifts must be declared regardless of amount in the prescribed format as stated in the policies.
2. Only branded items may be offered as gifts to third parties, except with the express approval of the Managing Director.
3. Allowable limit of a gift valued at N10, 000.00 or any other sum as may be advised by the Bank may be received but must be declared.
4. Only one gift may be offered to a customer at any particular time during a six-month period
5. Employees' families are prohibited from soliciting/accepting or receiving/giving gifts directly or indirectly on behalf of employees, where such gifts are obtained from contractors, consultants or agents of the Bank and where the employee has a professional relationship with those Contractors, Consultants or agents of the Bank.
Non-adherence to policy will lead to sanctions.
This policy applies to all employees.”

60. The Defendant claims that the Claimant benefited the sum of N975, 000 (Nine Hundred and Seventy-Five Thousand Naira) between 10^th of June to 8^th of July. This allegation is further supported by the statement of account of Claimant domiciled in Zenith Bank (exhibit D18). It is trite that the purport of documentary evidence is to strengthen the credibility of the oral evidence. Thus, it acts as the hanger upon which the veracity of the oral evidence is tested. See DICKSON V. SYLVA(2017) 8 NWLR (PT, 1567) 167 @ P. 219 -220, PARAS H-A, RAMADA INTL ANS PHARMACY LTD V. EZEONU (2016) 14 NWLR (PT. 1533) 339 @ P. 356 PARAS A-B. It is noteworthy that the Claimant on his part also admitted to receiving gifts because of these transactions and that he declared these cash gifts a fact that was not supported with any evidence (see exhibit C16). It is trite that facts admitted need no further proof, in addition, facts pleaded but not proved are deemed abandoned. See BANKE V. AKURE NORTH LOCAL GOVT. (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1455) 400 @ P. 417, PARA G, ALADUM V. OGBU (2023) 9 NWLR (PT. 1888) 57 @ P. 76 PARAS E-G, U.E.S. LTD V. R.M.A. & F.C. (2022) 10 NWLR (PT. 1837) 133 @ P.163, PARA F) UKOH V. UKOH (2021) 7 NWLR (PT. 1775) 303 @ P. 332 PARAS E-G, B.S. NIG LTD V. OMETRACO INTL LTD (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1255) 290. Thus, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I find that the Defendant has proved that the Claimant received personal benefits from these transactions to the detriment of the Defendant and therefore occasioned conflict of interest. I so hold.

61. Flowing from the above, I therefore find that the Claimant’s acts were in conflict of interest to that of the Defendant and flagrant non-compliance with paragraph 4.4 of the employee’s handbook. I so hold.

62. On the other leg of unethical forex trading, it is common knowledge that unethical forex trading refers to activities that violate existing moral standards, professional codes of conduct, or regulatory rules governing the foreign exchange market. These practices often involve manipulation or exploitation for personal gain. A typical example is trading on behalf of clients while having personal interest; a factor that has already been proven against the Claimant in this case. Another instance is the act of the Claimant depositing the funds in his rather than the name of the depositor. Paragraph 16.2.4. of the employee’s handbook provides that an employee may be summarily dismissed for certain acts of gross misconduct one of which is deriving any benefit in the course of official duties, which places the employee in such a position that his/her personal interest and his/her duty to the employer or any customer of the bank are in conflict (conflict of interest) a factor which has been established against the Claimant. The handbook also empowers the Defendant to summarily dismiss for any other act of gross misconduct as may be determined by the management of the bank. Hence, I find that the summary dismissal of the Claimant is valid. I so hold.

63. The Claimant as can be seen in relief 2 is seeking for declaration that unauthorised debit of $1500 USD (One Thousand Five Hundred dollars) from his USD domiciliary account is unlawful and oppressive. The Defendant on the other hand contested that the Claimant authorised a foreign currency withdrawal and supported its claims with exhibit D10 (foreign currency account withdrawal form) issued by the Claimant.  However, the Claimant in his reply to query (exhibit C16) had stated that he deposited $1500 (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) to the bank as part of his effort to recover the monies lost. Let me reiterate at the expense of repetition that documentary evidence is the hanger upon which to assess the oral evidence. It is the best form of evidence, therefore, no oral evidence will be admitted to contradict contents of documentary evidence except where fraud is alleged and proved. See RAMADA INTL PHARMACY LTD V. EZEONU (SUPRA). Thus, in the absence of credible evidence, this relief fails.

64. The Claimant can also be seen as per relief 5 to be seeking for an order directing the Defendant to unfreeze the Claimant's accounts and children’s accounts which are all domiciled with the Defendant. An allegation which the Defendant denies, therefore leaving the burden of proof on the Claimant who is asserting. Nonetheless, the Claimant has failed to adduce evidence in support of this claim. It is trite that facts pleaded but not proved are deemed abandoned, hence, in the absence of credible and cogent evidence in support of this claim, it is bound to fail. See OBULOR V. OBORO (2001) 4 SC (PT. 1) 71 @ 79-80.

65. Regarding Claimant’s claim for earned allowance as per claim 7 which is seeking for an order compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N5, 203,006.45 (Five Million, Two Hundred and Three Thousand, Six Naira, Forty-Five Kobo) being the Claimant's earned allowances while in the employment of the Defendant, it is the law that special damages must not only be specially pleaded with relevant particulars but must also be strictly proved with credible evidence. See SUFFOLK PET. SERVICES LTD. V. ADNAN MANSOR (NIG) LTD (2019) 2 NWLR (PT. 1655) 1 @ p. 30 PARAS F-G, U.B.N. PLC V. CHIMAEZE (2014) 9 NWR (PT. 1411) 166 @ P.191, PARAS B-D, IBRAHIM V. OBAJE (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1660) 389 @ P. 415, PARAS C-D.

66. In support of this claim, the Claimant tendered his exit computation and details admitted and marked as exhibit C11 which I have carefully considered. I have deduced from exhibit C11 that the Claimant’s earned  salary was N5,203,006.45 (Five Million, Two Hundred and Three Thousand, Six Naira and Forty-Five Kobo), unearned allowances was N23,048.13 (Twenty Three Thousand, Forty-Eight Naira and Thirteen Kobo), outstanding indebtedness was N3517,995.73 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Seventeen Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety-Five Naira and Seventy-Three Kobo) and balance forfeited to the bank was N1,661,962.58 (One Million, Six Hundred and Sixty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Two Naira, Fifty-Eight Kobo).

67. It is pertinent to state that the Claimant was placed on suspension by a letter dated 14^th July 2022 (exhibit D8). Consequently, by virtue of paragraph 16.2.3 of the handbook (exhibit C4) an employee placed on suspension is entitled to ½ basic salary and full housing, utility, transport allowance and medical facilities. These particulars are reflected in Claimant’s employment letter (exhibit C1). Given that the allowances which the Claimant is entitled to during suspension are only paid per annum and not part of his salary, the Claimant is entitled to only 1/2 basic salary which the Defendant paid after statutory deductions. See exhibit D11 (pay slip). Thus, having maintained that the Claimant’s suspension was in line with the employee’s handbook and upheld the dismissal of the Claimant’s employment, I find that the Claimant is not entitled to relief 7.

Accordingly, this suit is determined as follows:

Reliefs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 fail.

Relief 3 succeeds

Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.

 

_____________________

Hon. Justice R.B. Haastrup

Judge